Abteilung Fahrzeugtechnik
EEVC Working Group 15 (Compatibility Between Passenger Cars) has carried out research for several years thanks to collaborative project funded by the E.C. and also by exchanging results of projects funded by national programmes. The main collaborative activity of the EEVC WG15 for the last four years was a research project partly funded by the European Commission, where the group made the first attempt to investigate compatibility between passenger cars in a comprehensive research program. Accident, crash test, and mathematical modelling data were analysed. The main result was that structural incompatibilities were frequently found and identified as the main source of incompatibility problems but were not easy to quantify. Unfortunately as little vehicle information other than mass is recorded in most accident databases, most analyses have only been able to show the effect of mass or mass ratio. Common ideas to improve compatibility have been reached by this group and from discussion with other research groups. They will be investigated in the next phase, where research work will concentrate on the development of methods to assess compatibility of passenger cars. The main idea is that the prerequisite to improve crash compatibility between cars is to improve structural interaction. The most important issue is that improved compatibility must not compromise a vehicle- self protection. Test methods should lead to vehicles which show good structural interaction in car to car accidents. Test methods to prove good compatibility may be an adaptation of existing regulatory test procedures (offset deformable barrier test or full width test like in the USA) for frontal impact or may be new compatibility tests. Additional criteria, e.g. impact force distribution, and maximum vehicle deceleration or maximum vehicle impact force should result in compatible cars. Attempts will be made to estimate the benefit of a more compatible car fleet for the European Community.
The purpose of this paper is to review injuries found in real world lateral collisions and determine the mechanisms responsible for certain kinds of biomechanical failure. During the last years the distribution of deaths among the different types of accidents has changed. Lateral collisions now are the most frequent cause of fatal and other serious injuries. Every third accident is an impact from the side, while every second fatality is the result of a lateral accident. Just a few years ago this value was no higher than 30%. This is probably the result of increasing safety standards for frontal collisions (airbags, seatbelt usage, structural improvements of cars, etc.). Although the number of registered vehicles increased, the total amount of fatalities decreased during the same period. Thus it is now necessary to pay greater attention to the lateral accident situation in order to improve road safety and decrease the number of traffic injuries. Several European organisations had decided to launch the project SID2000, which was funded by the European Commission, with the intention of gathering more knowledge on injuries occurring in lateral accidents and the mechanisms that lead to such injuries. This should enable the group to define the requirements for a new side impact dummy (SID) to be designed. Within the same project the existing TNO-EUROSID 1 was enhanced by another group and the experience gained has now enabled allowed to design a better measuring device for side impacts. The data used for this contribution came from sources from all over Europe and had to be gathered in such a manner that as many accident parameters as possible were taken into account.
Despite the steadily declining number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries in most European countries during recent decades, pedestrian protection is still of great importance in the European Union as well as in Germany. This is because they still constitute a large proportion of road user casualties and are more likely to suffer serious and fatal injuries than most other road users. In 1999 only car occupants suffered more fatal injuries than pedestrians in Germany. In December 1998, EEVC WG 17 completed their review and updating of the EEVC WG 10 pedestrian test procedure that made it possible to evaluate the protection afforded to pedestrians by the front of passenger cars in an accident. Within the scope of this procedure, four different impactors are used representing those parts of the body which are injured very often and/or very seriously in vehicle-pedestrian-collisions. In a project executed by IKA and BASt, a small family car was tested according to the EEVC WG 17 test procedure. Afterwards modifications to the car were carried out in order to improve the pedestrian protection provided by the vehicle design. There were certain restrictions placed on the level of modifications undertaken, e.g. only minor modifications to vehicle styling and to the vehicle structures, which provide passenger protection. The redesigned vehicle was tested again using the WG 17 test procedure. The test results of the modified vehicle were compared with those of the standard vehicle and evaluated. The results show that considered measures for pedestrian protection in many areas of the vehicle front structure and the use of innovative techniques can lead to a significant reduction of the loads of pedestrians at an acceptable expense.
The Swedish National Road Administration (SNRA), the Japanese Automobile Research Institute (JARI) and the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt) are co-operating in the International Harmonized Research Activities on Intelligent Transportation Systems (IHRA-ITS). Under this umbrella a joint study was conducted. The overall objective of this study was to contribute to the definition and validation of a "battery of tools" which enables a prediction and an assessment of changes in driver workload due to the use of in-vehicle information systems (IVIS) while driving. In this sense \"validation\" means to produce empirical evidence from which it can be concluded that these methods reliably discriminate between IVIS which differ in terms of relevant features of the HMI-design. Additionally these methods should also be sensitive to the task demands imposed on the driver by the traffic situation and their interactions with HMI-design. To achieve these goals experimental validation studies (on-road and in the simulator) were performed in Sweden, Germany and Japan. As a common element these studies focused on the secondary task methodology as an approach to the study of driver workload. In a joint German-Swedish on-road study the Peripheral Detection Task (PDT) was assessed with respect to its sensitivity to the complexity of traffic situations and effects of different types of navigation systems. Results show that the PDT performance of both the German and the Swedish subjects reflects the task demands of the traffic situations better than those of the IVIS. However, alternative explanations are possible which will be examined by further analyses. Results of this study are supplemented by the Japanese study where informational demands induced by various traffic situations were analysed by using a simple arithmetic task as a secondary task. Results of this study show that relatively large task demands can be expected even from simple traffic situations.
The frontal crash is still an important contributor to deaths and serious injured resulting from road accidents in Europe. As the Hybrid-III dummy used in crash tests is over two decades old, the European Enhanced Vehicle-safety Committee is studying the potential for a new test device. Key is the availability of a well-defined set of requirements that identifies the minimum level of biofidelity required for an advanced frontal dummy. In this paper, a complete set of frontal impact biofidelity requirements, consisting of references , description of test conditions and corridors, is presented.
In spite of today's highly sophisticated crash test procedures like the different NCAP programs running world-wide, bad real world crash performance of cars is still an issue. There are crash situations which are not sufficiently represented by actual test configurations. This is especially true for car to car, as well as for car to object impacts. The paper describes reasons for this bad performance. The reasons are in principal bad structural interaction between the car and its impact partners (geometric incompatibility), unadjusted front end stiffness (stiffness incompatibility) and collapse of passenger compartments. To show the efficiency of improving cars' structural behaviour in accidents with different impact partners an accident data analysis has been taken out by members of European Project VC-COMPAT. Accident data analysis has shown that in Germany between 15,000 and 20,000 of the now severely injured car occupants might get less injured and between 600 and 900 car occupant fatalities might be saved. Similar results arise for the UK.
Today, Euro NCAP is a well established rating system for passive car safety. The significance of the ratings must however be evaluated by comparison with national accident data. For this purpose accidents with involvement of two passenger cars have been taken from the German National Road Accident Register (record years 1998 to 2004) to evaluate the results of the NCAP frontal impact test configuration. Injury data from both drivers involved in frontal car to car collisions have been sampled and have been compared, using a "Bradley Terry Model" which is well established in the area of paired comparisons. Confounders " like mass ratio of the cars involved, gender of the driver, etc. " have been accounted for in the statistical model. Applying the Bradley Terry Model to the national accident data the safety ranking from Euro NCAP has been validated (safety level: 1star <2 star <3 star <4 star). Significant safety differences are found between cars of the 1 and 2 star category as compared to cars of the 3 and 4 star category. The impact of the mass ratio was highly significant and most influential. Changing the mass ratio by an amount of 10% will raise the chance for the driver of the heavier car to get better off by about 18%. The impact of driver gender was again highly significant, showing a nearly 2 times lower injury risk for male drivers. With regard to the NCAP rating drivers of a high rated car are more than 2 times more probable (70% chance) to get off less injured in a frontal collision as compared to the driver of a low rated car.
Since 2005 the German In-Depth Accident Study (GIDAS) also records aspects of active vehicle safety. This is done because vehicles are fitted with an increasing number of active safety devices which have undoubtedly an influence on the number, severity and course of accidents. Accident researchers expect that collecting active safety data will facilitate to assess and quantify the impact of these and future devices. It is the aim of this paper to outline benefits and limitations associated with the recording of active safety aspects within indepth studies. An overview about possible areas where active safety data can be useful will be given. For that purpose single safety or comfort systems will be selected to estimate the effects of an accident database which includes variables associated with these systems. Questions with regard to the limitations of collecting active safety data will be addressed. Possible items are for example the usability of the data recorded, the real accident cause, the small number of relevant accidents, the time span needed to gather a sufficient dataset, the small share of vehicles equipped with a certain system or different functionalities of systems that are supposed to fall in the same category. As a result user needs for a reasonable data collection of active safety elements will be elaborated.
Mit dem Seminar SILENCE wurde ein Forschungsprojekt abgeschlossen, das aus zehn Unterprojekten bestand, und an dem 46 internationale Partner beteiligt waren. Ziel des Projektes war es, die Belästigung durch Verkehrslärm in Ballungsräumen zu reduzieren. Das Projekt wurde in den Jahren 2005 bis 2008 mit insgesamt rund 9 Millionen Euro durch die Europäische Union gefördert. Auf dem SILENCE-Seminar im Mai 2008 in den Räumen der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen wurden die aktuellen Forschungsergebnisse von Vertretern der verschiedenen beteiligten Disziplinen präsentiert und diskutiert mit dem Ziel, die gefundenen Problemlösungen an die Anwender zu übermitteln